The political left seems to have unlimited funds to spread its poison. Meanwhile, promoting free markets and capitalism is almost always done on the cheap. It shouldn’t be this way. The individuals and businesses that have enjoyed the bountiful fruits of capitalism should generously support those who fight on the ground to keep government from choking the only arrangement that has produced widespread prosperity.

The Democrats and their big tent of progressives, socialists, Marxists, Leninists and Maoists not only have infinite in-kind contributions from a friendly press, they are well funded by the wealthy who have chosen to subsidize virulent anti-capitalists. Think of George Soros. Reid Hoffman. Neville Roy Singham. Michael Bloomberg. Walmart heir Christy Walton. There are hundreds of other rich Americans who became wealthy through the blessings of capitalism, yet give large sums to politicians and organizations that intensely oppose the system that made it possible for them to succeed.

There are some prominent financial supporters of capitalism — the Koch brothers, the Wilks brothers, the Mellons, Adelsons, Uihleins, as well as Elon Musk, Ken Griffin and Scott Banister, of whom we recently just became aware — who understand the importance of protecting capitalism from the vandals on the left. But there are too many capitalists who inexplicably don’t feel the need to fund the guardians of capitalism. Their donations could help offset the big money that finances politicians and groups whose goal is to kill the based-in-liberty system that allowed them to generate great wealth. They seem to not understand that if they don’t battle for what is theirs, it will be taken from them and their heirs.

Yes, Republicans are spending heavily on the midterm elections. This is necessary to keep the left from accruing more political power, which it will use to ruin the great American experiment of liberty and economic freedom. But Republicans have not been reliable defenders of capitalism.

From our experience, we’ve learned that defending capitalism through the intellectual and moral arguments made by nonprofits in Washington and elsewhere, and through media outlets, which know that without capitalism we are uncivilized louts, is a perpetual strain because there’s never enough money to fend off the left.

Ideally, there would be no reason to have think tanks and media that are dedicated to safeguarding capitalism. All voters would understand how, as legendary economist Milton Friedman observed, that “never in history has there been a more effective machine for eliminating poverty than the free-enterprise system and the free market.” But our country, in fact the developed West, is impaired by thoughtlessness, ignorance and incomplete public school educations that are exploited by the vicious plunderers and radicals on the political left who crave power.

There has never been a means by which millions have become so prosperous that they live better than the kings and queens of previous generations other than through capitalism, which is simply the financial interactions that take place when people are allowed to trade freely among themselves. It’s as natural to humanity as socialism, communism, central planning and forced wealth redistribution is unnatural. It is not based on greed, but on mutual cooperation.

Socialism, however, runs on greed, on the envy of another’s success, on covetousness and resentment. The organizing principle is to take, by force, if necessary, the property of producers and funnel it to the violent leaders who will hoard it for themselves. If allowed to run wild, it will crush all the great benefits capitalism has produced.

Issues & Insights Editorial Board

Under the first scenario proposed by the researchers, Moscow’s forces would continue their incremental advance and push westward toward the Dnipro River. As a result of their military victories, the Kremlin would force Ukraine to accept a negotiated settlement on terms beneficial to Moscow. According to the report, such an outcome would amount to a Russian partial victory, giving the Kremlin influence over Ukraine’s political and economic orientation, including EU and NATO membership. The study further warned that Ukraine could lose half its territory, face long-term political destabilization, and risk democratic backsliding — or even state failure. Millions more Ukrainians — an estimated 6 to 11 million — could flee toward Europe, generating 524-952 billion euros ($606 billion – 1.1 trillion) in refugee-related expenses over four years.

Additional defense spending to reinforce NATO’s eastern flank would raise Europe’s total costs under Scenario 1 to €1.2-€1.6 trillion ($1.4-1.8 trillion). Following a negotiated settlement to its invasion of Ukraine, Russia could then redirect military resources toward Moldova, the Baltic states, or the Nordic region, the report said. European governments would need to rapidly build up its defenses and deterrence in the Baltics and Arctic, while simultaneously dealing with rising political strain from migration and domestic polarization.

Under a second scenario — or a Ukrainian victory — the cost associated would be significantly less for Europe, the researchers found. With the right level of support, Ukraine could rebuild superior combat power — similar to its successful 2022 counter offensives — and begin retaking occupied territory. In this scenario, Ukraine’s battlefield momentum would force Russia into peace talks that safeguard Kyiv’s vital interests. To facilitate victory, Ukraine would require a rapid influx of military equipment. This would include “1,500-2,500 battle tanks and 2,000-3,000 artillery systems over one or two years… Ukraine will also need up to 8 million drones of all types, air defense, and strategic missile systems.”

If these capabilities are delivered, the report argued, Ukraine could stop Russian advances, reclaim strategically important areas, and restore conditions for political normalization and economic recovery. A Ukrainian partial victory would also accelerate EU integration, encourage refugee returns, and reduce country-risk premiums for investors. Europe’s estimated cost for enabling such an outcome — including military aid, industrial support, and reduced refugee burdens — totals 522–838 billion euros ($605-$972 billion) over four years, roughly half the cost of a Russian victory. Confiscation of frozen Russian assets could further reduce European expenses by up to 50 percent.

A Russian military victory in Ukraine would cost Europe twice as much as a Ukrainian victory, according to a new study by Corisk and the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs published on Nov. 25.

Under the first scenario proposed by the researchers, Moscow’s forces would continue their incremental advance and push westward toward the Dnipro River. As a result of their military victories, the Kremlin would force Ukraine to accept a negotiated settlement on terms beneficial to Moscow. According to the report, such an outcome would amount to a Russian partial victory, giving the Kremlin influence over Ukraine’s political and economic orientation, including EU and NATO membership. The study further warned that Ukraine could lose half its territory, face long-term political destabilization, and risk democratic backsliding — or even state failure. Millions more Ukrainians — an estimated 6 to 11 million — could flee toward Europe, generating 524-952 billion euros ($606 billion – 1.1 trillion) in refugee-related expenses over four years.

Additional defense spending to reinforce NATO’s eastern flank would raise Europe’s total costs under Scenario 1 to €1.2-€1.6 trillion ($1.4-1.8 trillion). Following a negotiated settlement to its invasion of Ukraine, Russia could then redirect military resources toward Moldova, the Baltic states, or the Nordic region, the report said. European governments would need to rapidly build up its defenses and deterrence in the Baltics and Arctic, while simultaneously dealing with rising political strain from migration and domestic polarization.

Under a second scenario — or a Ukrainian victory — the cost associated would be significantly less for Europe, the researchers found. With the right level of support, Ukraine could rebuild superior combat power — similar to its successful 2022 counter offensives — and begin retaking occupied territory. In this scenario, Ukraine’s battlefield momentum would force Russia into peace talks that safeguard Kyiv’s vital interests. To facilitate victory, Ukraine would require a rapid influx of military equipment. This would include “1,500-2,500 battle tanks and 2,000-3,000 artillery systems over one or two years… Ukraine will also need up to 8 million drones of all types, air defense, and strategic missile systems.”

If these capabilities are delivered, the report argued, Ukraine could stop Russian advances, reclaim strategically important areas, and restore conditions for political normalization and economic recovery. A Ukrainian partial victory would also accelerate EU integration, encourage refugee returns, and reduce country-risk premiums for investors. Europe’s estimated cost for enabling such an outcome — including military aid, industrial support, and reduced refugee burdens — totals 522–838 billion euros ($605-$972 billion) over four years, roughly half the cost of a Russian victory. Confiscation of frozen Russian assets could further reduce European expenses by up to 50 percent.

Lucy Pakhnyuk, Kyiv Independent

Remembering the False Gloom and Doom of the 1992 Elections—and the Upcoming Midterms

In 1992, Bill Clinton won the presidential election partly on the basis of his campaign’s false accusation that George H. W. Bush had overseen “the worst economic performance since the Great Depression.” Or so claimed Clinton’s running mate Al Gore.

James Carville, chief campaign adviser to Clinton/Gore, amplified that message with the constant refrain: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

That strategy worked for three reasons.

First, third-party candidate Ross Perot siphoned off nearly 19 percent of the vote. Most of his supporters would otherwise likely have gone to Bush. Perot allowed Clinton to win with a mere 43 percent of the popular vote, in part by echoing the false narrative of a crushing Bush recession.

Second, the brilliant Bush campaign strategist Lee Atwater, who had virtually destroyed the Dukakis campaign in 1988—remember the tank ad, the Boston Harbor ad, and the Willie Horton ad?—had died in 1991 at the age of 40 from a brain tumor.

Atwater’s canny but hardball 1988 tactics had turned off establishment Republicans. So in 1992, Republicans reverted to the notion of losing nobly rather than winning ugly and resumed unilaterally playing by the Marquess of Queensberry rules. The result of Democratic demagoguery was that the sober and competent elder Bush was branded a heartless elitist who had wrecked the economy and defended Kuwait only for “blood for oil.” And without Atwater, the Bush team utterly failed to refute such caricatures and counterattack.

Third, and most important, the anemic Bush reelection campaign never refuted the Clinton-Gore economic hysteria. That “recession” deception had drowned out the historic foreign policy achievements of Bush’s four years, from the successful policies that followed the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 to the decisive 1991 Gulf War.

Despite overwrought claims about a recession or even a new Great Depression, in truth, the recession had ended in March 1991. In fact, final GDP growth for 1992 was a robust 3.52 percent. That was hardly a recessionary indicator. Indeed, the election-year growth proved even stronger than in Clinton’s first year of governance in 1993.

While unemployment was still high at 7.5 percent, the 1992 stock market nonetheless grew by 7.6 percent. And the 1992 inflation rate had stayed moderate at 2.9 percent.

In other words, the economy had already begun to recover from the 1990–91 recession, which—to reiterate—had officially ended 20 months before the 1992 election.

One cause—eerily now familiar—of the earlier 1990–91 downturn was that oil prices had initially doubled after the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the U.S. military response. But prices collapsed as soon as Operation Desert Storm began, despite the later torching of the Kuwaiti oil fields and continued uncertainty in the Gulf. Yet by the November 1992 election, oil prices had long been back to pre-invasion levels.

In short, the Democrats’ charge that 1992 saw the worst recession in 60 years was absurd. (The 1973–75 and 1981–82 recessions were far worse than the 1990–91 recession.)

Fast forward to the present. The economy today is far better than in 1992. But Democrats’ successful 1992 demagoguery should remind Republicans that the perception of the economy peddled by campaign rhetoric can often decide elections more than the reality does.

But they remain impressive: the rebooting of NATO by getting its members to rearm and take up their fair share of collective defense; the acquisition of new treaties ensuring an American military presence in the Greenland to monitor the contested Arctic; the radical transformation of much of the Western Hemisphere from leftist and anti-American nations into pro-American, tough-on-crime, free-market countries; the expulsion of the Chinese bad actors from the Panama Canal and the extradition of the anti-American communist Maduro from Venezuela; the restoration of Pentagon recruitment; and the change in Pentagon procurement to emphasize quantity of weaponry along with quality.

The verdict on the unpopular war against the Iranian theocracy is still out. But the idea that the last seven months of on-again, off-again strikes and negotiations amount, in terms of human and material costs, to a “forever war” is absurd and a lie.

While all our soldiers’ deaths are tragic, the conduct of the war against the terrorist powerhouse of the Middle East had deliberately been waged to limit the loss of American lives. Indeed, the average daily fatality rate due to accidents in all branches of the military during the seven months of the Iran conflict is some eleven times greater than the number of those killed fighting Iran.

The roughly $40 billion cost of the war so far, while substantial, amounts to about 25% of the conservative estimates of recently discovered welfare corruption and fraud in California alone—involving theft of Medi-Cal, unemployment insurance, in-home services, and hospice funding.

The war will be judged by historians, fairly or not, on whether it delays for years or, if not, ends Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons altogether, and on whether it so weakens the theocracy that it permanently loses its terrorist leverage over the Middle East—if not eventually implodes from popular resistance. If such a regime collapse should follow the conflict, the Middle East miasma of the last 70 years would largely end, marking the most profound American achievement abroad since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

So much is at stake.

Nevertheless, the Republicans have not yet developed a strategy to inform the public that the economy is sound and improving—and will likely soon take off, after the Iran conflict is over, oil becomes plentiful again, and tax cuts, foreign investment, deregulation, and productivity gains from AI take their full effect.

Most importantly, Republicans have still not articulated why the “affordability” issue persists. Under Joe Biden, average prices were nearly 21 percent higher than when he took office, with a yearly average increase of more than 5 percent.

The Trump administration nearly halved that annual rate in 2025. It will reduce Biden’s yearly inflation rate substantially again in 2026.

But neither Trump nor any other president could or would wish by design to engineer radical deflation to restore prices to the pre-Biden levels of 2020 during Trump’s last year in office.

Trump’s first-term total four-year inflation rate was under 8 percent, averaging about 2 percent per year—far less than half the yearly inflation average of the subsequent Biden years.

In 2025, wages still climbed higher than the rate of inflation. But it would require a damaging recession to undo Biden’s 20 percent rise in prices. And worse still, the cost of staples such as food, shelter, vehicles, fuel, and insurance rose nearly 30 percent over Biden’s four years.

Nor have Republicans made the easy case that the midterms are no longer merely a matter of liberal versus conservative, Democrat versus Republican, or even progressives versus MAGA.

Rather, November 3 represents normality and common sense pitted against an unrecognizable “Democratic” revolutionary party that is driven by Islamist-sympathizing socialist zealots who are not fond of the United States as it has existed for 250 years. They are not shy about planning to remake America along the lines of, at best, radical European socialism and, at worst, something resembling Cuba.

Needless to say, if they get their way, even the most lurid false liberal claims about our current alleged economic problems will pale by comparison.

Victor Davis Hanson

Manheim has a son, Milo, who is also an actor. The 25-year-old was apparently conceived via sperm donation from her close friend Jeffrey Brezovar, who is  gay, and who seems to play an active role in Milo’s life. I honestly don’t care about any of this, but they put it out there.  

What I do find kind of sad is a joke that Manheim made over the weekend at the Human Rights Campaign 2026 National Dinner. The actress was presenting an award — specifically, the Ally for Equity Award — to her pal, Marcia Gay Harden, and she had this to say:  

I always wanted a gay son. I did. I love that relationship between gay sons and their mothers. I want to be the picket sign-holding mom who would beat the s**t out of somebody for her kid. I mean, let’s just admit it: Gay sons are the best, right?  Right!?

I have photographs of my son in high heels, in full drag. He knows every word to every musical ever written. His fairy godfather, Aaron Walton, is here with us tonight. I mean, truly, I thought I had this f***ing thing locked up.

But no, nooooooo. He’s the only straight guy in his entire musical theater company.  

So, when Marcia called me about 10 years ago from her closet — I kid you not, she was in her closet — to tell me that her son had come out to her as gay, all I said was, ‘Oh my God. You are so f***ing lucky.’  

About a week later, I was at Marcia’s house for dinner when an Amazon package was delivered for her son. And inside, I’m not kidding you, was a pair of thigh-high red patent leather boots — like kinky boots. And I thought, oh come on, now she is just showing off, right?  

I don’t care what Manheim or her friends do in their spare time, but when they put their bigotry and poor parenting skills (notice it’s all about what she wants) on full display, it’s fair game. First, this might be some kind of inside joke with her and her son, but as someone in the comments section on that video points out, could you imagine if the son was gay, and she came out and said she’d hoped he was straight?  

Second of all, she makes it out like being a gay man is just about being flamboyant and wearing women’s clothing. I have gay men in my life, one of whom I’m quite close to, and this is exactly what they hate about the LGBTetc. crowd. They aren’t walking cliches or some single mom’s fantasy BFF who can go shopping for “kinky boots” with her. They hate Gay Pride and all that nonsense. One has told me that he often wishes he wasn’t gay because it’s not the easiest life. My next-door neighbors are gay, and they just want to live their lives unbothered. 

Finally, when my colleague, Catherine Salgado, heard I was writing this story today, she said, “I hear that an LGBTQ child is a must have accessory in Hollywood this year.”  

She’s not wrong. Even stripping away the LGB part of it, just look at how many celebrities have “trans” or “nonbinary” kids. In just the last month or so, I’ve heard stories about the children of Jennifer Lopez, Naomi Watts, Charlize Theron, Jamie Lee Curtis, Cynthia Nixon, Jennifer Garner, and more.   

I’m not sure if it’s a mental health epidemic, the result of growing up with narcissistic and attention-seeking parents, or just some trend — maybe a bit of all three — but these parents act like they’ve won some sort of prize when their kid “comes out” as anything.  I feel bad for these kids and the ones outside of Hollywood who look up to them.  

PJ Media

I don’t know if I’m the only one experiencing this in the last several years or if others have noticed this as well. I feel like I’m in the Twilight Zone whenever I talk to medical provider offices. The level of communication skills is just in the gutter. I get ghetto-level schedulers and other personnel who can barely speak English, or who don’t speak clearly into the phone. Not at one provider only, but with ALL the providers I deal with.

And their knowledge of their jobs is just as abysmal. It’s like I went to a Walmart cashier to have my gall bladder removed. I can’t get a coherent sentence from anyone, either because they’re straight of of the ‘hood, or English is their second or third language. Don’t competent white males or females apply for these jobs anymore?

It’s idiocracy brought to life! I feel like society is crumbling.

fwdude, self

Researchers proved AI has deleted every reason universities exist.

Harvard University ran a controlled experiment pitting a custom AI against their own top-tier classrooms.

And the results are going to collapse the higher education bubble.

They took 194 undergraduates and split them up.

One group learned physics in one of Harvard’s best hands-on, active-learning physical classrooms. Group work. Instructor support. The premium university experience.

The other group went home and learned the exact same material with an AI tutor.

The AI didn’t just win. It embarrassed the institution.

Students using the AI learned more than twice as much as the students in the elite Harvard classroom.

They scored 30% higher on the final assessment.

And they did it in less time.

Let that sink in.

A piece of software sitting on a laptop outperformed a world-class faculty in one of the most elite learning environments on Earth.

Universities have always justified their exorbitant tuition with two things: access to elite knowledge and the physical classroom experience.

This study just proved both of those moats are gone.

When software can teach you complex physics twice as well as a $60,000-a-year institution, the math of higher education breaks permanently.

The AI didn’t just give the students answers. It used strict pedagogical guardrails. It guided. It questioned. It forced the students to do the cognitive work.

It offered perfect, one-to-one tutoring, personalized to the exact moment a student misunderstood a concept.

That level of attention is mathematically impossible to scale in a physical lecture hall.

For a thousand years, the university was the only place to get a premium education.

Now, it’s the bottleneck.

If AI can double your learning speed for a fraction of the cost, what exactly are students taking on decades of debt to pay for?

Superman, X

By Jon Brown, Christian Post Reporter

A friend of C.S. Lewis’ stepson claimed this week that members of the late author’s family are “very upset” by Meryl Streep’s casting as Aslan in Netflix’s upcoming Narnia adaptation and are attempting to “regain control” of the company that manages the literary and media rights to Lewis’ works.

“They’re very concerned about it, because they’re worried that it’s going to, you know, destroy the brand,” Movieguide founder Dr. Ted Baehr told CBN News, noting that Lewis’ 80-year-old stepson, Douglas Gresham, is godfather to his daughter-in-law.

Baehr also served as president of the Episcopal Radio and Television Foundation, which produced the animated version of The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe on CBS in 1979.

Confirmation from director Greta Gerwig last week that Streep was cast to voice Aslan in The Magician’s Nephew prompted a torrent of negative reaction from many Christian fans, some of whom suggested that gender-swapping the Christ-like lion is an affront to the classic Christian allegory.

Baehr stopped short of offering details on his claim that the Gresham family are attempting to take back the reins of The C.S. Lewis Company, which closed a multi-year deal with Netflix in 2018 to develop new series and film projects based on The Chronicles of Narnia.

“They did a big campaign. They’re trying to regain control of The C.S. Lewis Company in order that—” Baehr said before cutting himself off. “The problem is, and this happens quite often — no, I shouldn’t tell you that. But anyway, things happen.”

Baehr, who ensured that Aslan remained an uncompromised allegory for Jesus Christ in the 1979 adaptation, explained that the casting of a female actor to portray Aslan presents “lots of issues” that extend beyond merely upsetting fans.

“One, it’s beloved; one, it’s going to destroy the brand. But there’s a deeper issue, which is the theological issue,” he said, noting the serious theological implications of tinkering with the gender identity of Aslan — a character Lewis described as the incarnation of Christ in a world like Narnia.

“Because God the Father, and Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit and, of course, the whole process leads toward The Last Battle, and The Last Battle represents Jesus in Heaven,” he said, referring to the last book in the Narnia series. “If God is a Father, he is not Meryl Streep pretending to be a father. He’s not trans. He’s the Father, he’s our Father. He loves us, He adopts us.”

The Last Battle, which reflects Lewis’ eschatology and views on modern apostasy, tells the story of an old, manipulative ape named Shift convincing a gullible donkey named Puzzle to masquerade as Aslan by wearing the skin suit of a lion. Shift deceives many of the talking animals of Narnia into following the false, ultimately demonic Aslan named “Tashlan,” which is the name some critics on social media have assigned to Streep’s version of the character.

Baehr noted that The Magician’s Nephew was intended as the Genesis of Narnia, and that the fatherhood of God in creating the world is a crucial part of the story.

“You have to have God as a Father. You can’t have God being voiced as a woman. This is not theologically correct,” said Baehr, who placed director Greta Gerwig’s reinterpretation of Narnia in the context of other directors inserting ideology into adaptations of classic literature, such as Christopher Nolan’s recent version of The Odyssey.

Baehr, who said he spoke with Gerwig after she agreed to direct The Magician’s Nephew, said while he believes the director “has a heart for God,” he questions whether she has the biblical worldview to faithfully pull off the adaptation.

“I don’t want to classify her in any category, but if you look at [Gerwig’s] ‘Barbie’ or whatever, it’s much more feminist. There’s a feminist undertone. It’s not a biblical portrait of relationships. And I think you need to see the biblical portrait,” he said of Gerwig.

Gerwig, who grew up as a Unitarian Universalist, has said she envisions her adaptation of The Magician’s Nephew to be “a rock opera,” claiming, “David Bowie saved my life. Paul McCartney saved my life. David Gilmour saved my life. Pete Townshend saved my life. Jimmy Page, Robert Plant. … Narnia is literally a world made out of music. It is a world sung to life by Aslan.”

In a 2018 interview, Gerwig said she feels “uncomfortable around ‘Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior stuff,’ I find that creepy, but I go to church every Sunday.” She claimed she would attend multiple services across different denominations on the same day, but noted she appreciates prayers to the Virgin Mary because “it feels like this ‘God the Father’ thing is a bit alienating for me.”

Yes, the gas prices are high, but I live in California, where gas prices are always going to be higher than in the rest of the country. I don’t blame President Trump, nor do I blame the conflict in Iran. If Iran wasn’t trying to blow us up in a nuclear holocaust, then there would have been no reason for the United States to attack them! California shut down two refineries, and they add taxes and fees on top of more taxes and fees. Don’t scream at Trump, blue state residents. Blame your own incompetent state governments!

Am I happy about the inflation? No. Three percent inflation is bad. This is a problem of federal overspending, and I don’t think that President Trump’s $5,000 dividend proposal is any good. If he’s joking, it’s still not a great idea. There’s a better way to give us money: let us keep what we already earn. Congress can cut a trillion and a half out of the budget, and then give all of the taxpaying Americans a $5,000 rebate from our 2026 tax returns.

Affordability, housing costs, wars and rumors of wars: the doomers, the blackpillers, the corporate media, the Democrats and their academic acolytes, all want us to focus on what is wrong or bad. They want their communist pals to get elected up and down the ticket this November.

We must not let some setbacks distract us from the great work that Trump and team have accomplished.

President Trump is doing so much good that I can let the little stuff go. The fact that we have illegal aliens fleeing our country, that visa overstays are getting kicked out, that immigrants who came in legally but caused nothing but trouble are being deported as well, and the fact that President Trump is standing tall and fighting for America makes me so proud to support him and the Republican ticket going into Election 2026.

I’m sick and tired of listening to Americans b***h and moan about how much the gas is. Maybe they should talk to someone who drove their first car in the 1970s, when the OPEC-driven gas shortages were so acute that people could only go to gas stations depending on certain days and whether they had a number or a letter at the end of their license plate. President Trump has been playing 4-D chess when it comes to ensuring energy dominance and stability, protecting American prestige, securing our interests, and advancing our future. Trump took out Venezuelan narco-dictator Nicolas Maduro, then scored an excellent oil deal with the new leadership of the Latin American Communist hellhole, soon to be freed to a republic once again. Trump has put Cuba on its heels and forced it to its knees. Mexico is no longer bailing out bad actors in the Caribbean and helping us defeat the drug cartels, too.

President Trump gave a great presentation of American greatness at the UN last week. I normally don’t watch the UN speeches, but I listened to everything he said on September 23, 2026, and I applaud everything. He stood up to Iran — to its face; he denounced Cuba, and the communist delegation saved face by walking out in shame; he stood up for American sovereignty once again, and he asserted clearly that there is no right to illegal immigration, but there is a right for nations to assert their sovereignty.

I voted for all of this. I loved that he’s doubling down on why we elected him in 2024, and he’s not allowing some bad polling or nasty press to stop him from doing what is best.

The general public, including the conservative commentary class, is not paying enough attention to the massive rightward shift overtaking Latin America. For the first time in decades, the American President enjoys considerable, consummate allies at the UN from throughout the Americas. From Argentina to Ecuador, and now including a traditional Catholic president of Colombia openly allying with us and fighting transnational drug cartels, we have allies helping us in our fight to protect our country, and you can bet your bottom dollar (or peso) that they’re stopping the flow of mass immigration to our country. Canada is the only country not getting along with us right now, but that will change soon.

Look at the major win that President Trump scored with Greenland! We get all of the power, we get to call the shots, we get to maintain our military presence, and we cut off hostile nations both to the west and to the NATO alliance. That means China and Russia don’t get to call dibs or take advantage of the mineral deposits in Greenland. Frankly, I would have had no problem incorporating that massive territory into the American sphere as a commonwealth along with Puerto Rico or Guam. But President Trump is making the best deals to do what will serve our country for the long term.

Also at the UN, the conservative president of Paraguay, after ending sex mutilation of minors in his country, declared that Latin America must stop depending on the United States to do all the work for them. Have we not been praying for this day? The whole world has viewed the United States as the Battered Women’s Shelter of the World or the Backup Plan for every failed State and for the voters in these countries who insisted on voting for those failed politicians. Sovereign countries around the world are taking responsibility for their defense, their sovereignty, their culture, and their future. WINNING!

I voted for all of this. No matter the domestic disturbances or disappointments that we face stateside, we should not ignore the fact that Trump 2.0 far exceeds not just his first term, but the terms of all the Republican and certainly Democratic presidents who have governed our country since the end of World War II.

Because of this incredible success at the domestic level, the cleaning out of the federal government, the ending of mass immigration, the increase in respect and sovereignty for our country, plus the fact that wages are rising and poverty has plummeted across the nation, I have no problem voting for the Republican ticket up and down the ballot.

We shouldn’t just be motivated by what makes us glad, but we need to pay attention to what we’re running against. From a twinky, flimsy, fake Christian playing pastor running against an effective attorney general in Texas, to an accomplished former congressman running against a pro-jihad militant in Michigan, we’ve got crazy Communists gunning for power all over the country. I don’t care how high your gas bills may be; it will be nothing compared to the energy crisis and domestic destruction if communist Democrats take the levers of power in Congress and in state legislatures across the country.

Don’t worry about high gas prices now. The war will end. Right now, we must choose American success and continued sovereignty, or communist failure. Election 2026 is the most important election yet. Don’t sit out the vote and pout. Trump is doing great, and our country is improving. I’m going to make phone calls for candidates in California and abroad. You should as well.

Arthur Schaper, Townhall

Leftists claim that without government control, AI will kill billions. We’re supposed to believe that Bill Gates, a sociopath who openly seeks to use his wealth to diminish the human population, really has our best interests at heart when he calls for a government takeover of AI. AI is deadly because of hackers, they claim. So by limiting the ability of non-criminals to use AI, we’re supposed to believe that criminals won’t get around the laws. Even though that’s what criminals do. Just like gun control.

People who would never seek to harm others using AI will be kept from using it. Lawbreakers who intend to harm others while using AI will continue to use it. Socialists and Communists just want government in charge of the flow of information. Government (especially when influenced by destructive villains like Bill Gates) is a much greater threat to life than technology ever could be.

A quote from Cicero comes to mind, as America flirts with dictatorship like never before:

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

It seems that the Democrats have already settled on a candidate for the ’28 presidential contest. It’s always a good idea to get ahead of the game, to make your arrangements early so as to guarantee a smooth, simple process and to ensure that all the pressure is on the opposition. At least that’s what you might think until you realize that the candidate is… Kamala Harris.

This is one of those things that causes you to stare off into space and consider whether you’ve slipped through a transdimensional portal and ended up in an alternate timeline where humans evolved from chipmunks.  

Harris gave a podcast interview on BigBoyTV that made it absolutely clear that she’s running, and that she has the support of… well, whoever is actually at the wheel of the Demotanic at the moment. Profound observations, attacks on Trump, coy statements about 2028, stale Dem talking points, attacks on Trump, word salads, attacks on Trump… She’s got ‘em all. Or, at least as much as could be expected from Joe Biden’s VP.  (The link above is an hour and 35 minutes long. No, I am not kidding. Since I am well known for my kindness and sense of mercy, here’s a much shorter highlights – I think that’s the technical term – version from Megyn Kelly, who subheaded it “What’s She Talking About?)

So let’s take a look at the record. Kamala Harris, after an absolutely undistinguished term as VP (remember her stint as “border czar”?) was dumped on the Democrats by SloJoe himself (or perhaps Jill, since it’s questionable that Joe had any idea who his VP was) as a blatant act of sabotage in revenge for the July ‘24 debate ambush. She then, with three months to campaign, dawdled for weeks before getting into gear. Over the next two months, she spent $1.25 billion, on what remains unclear two years later. She stumbled through a truncated campaign, giggling and tittering, showing no aptitude for speechmaking, no charisma, no ability to move a crowd, evidently under the impression that being a “black woman” (a debatable claim in itself) would put her over the top. Her one contribution to the art of campaigning was the introduction of glossolalia as an electoral tool.

Post-election, it was even worse. Kamala likes to take a drink, and in her first media appearances, she was obviously half in the bag. I would assume that she spent some time in a clinic since then.  

She was, quite simply, the worst candidate in modern American political history.

So naturally, the Democrats, as currently constituted, want her for ’28.

To my mind, the high point of the podcast occurs when she addresses a vase of flowers while rambling about algorithms. The “algorithms,” see, want you to look at the yellow flowers, but what if you want to see a purple flower? (Apparently, this is an attempt to blame her ’24 performance on social media. Which is a little odd, since, prior to the arrival of Elon the Magnificent, the Dems had social media sewed up, and this didn’t bother her or anybody else at the time.)

I confess I don’t know what to make of this. As a wild guess, I would surmise that this is a DNC effort to get somebody in place before the DSA can come up with a former ISIS member to run in the primaries. With Newsom evidently bowing out, Shapiro being Jewish and thus unacceptable to the Islamists and anti-Semites that now comprise the Democrat coalition, and nobody else even vaguely compelling on the horizon, it does make sense in a dull-normal kind of way.

I just hope they remember to lock up the bottles.

J. R. Dunn, American Thinker